Skip to main content

About this Show

U.S. House of Representatives





San Francisco, CA, USA

Comcast Cable

Channel 100 (651 MHz)






Us 66, Washington 28, Mr. Rogers 23, Kentucky 22, Mr. Garamendi 15, Mr. Hoyer 11, Noaa 10, Mr. Dicks 8, Rogers 7, Virginia 7, Pennsylvania 7, Susan B. Anthony 6, Hawaii 6, U.s. 6, Mr. Moran 6, California 6, Afghanistan 6, United States 5, China 5, Mr. Tonko 5,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  CSPAN    U.S. House of Representatives    News/Business.  

    March 15, 2011
    1:00 - 5:00pm EDT  

until september 30, the end of the fiscal year. "the wall street journal" writes the republicans want to cut spending in this budget by $61 billion below last year's level while democrats have agreed to about $10 billion in cuts. that's the $61 billion level, that's the home run 1 that passed in the -- that's the h.r. 1 that passed in the house back in february. e taken in the following order. adoption of the house resolution 167 by the yeas and nays. and approval of the journal if ordered. the first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote. the remaining electronic vote will be conducted as a five-minute vote. the unfinished business is the vote on adoption of the house resolution 167 on which the
yeas and nays were ordered. the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 17, house resolution 167. resolution providing for consideration of the joint resolution, house joint resolution 48, making further continuing appropriations for preer 2011, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on adoption of the resolution. members will record their votes by electronic device.
put de novo. e question is on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the journal stands approved.
the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. members should be aware they don't have anymore votes for a while, take their conversations off the floor. the house will be in order. members will take their conversations off the floor or take their seat.
members will vacate the well. members at the rear of the chamber by the railings will also please come to order. once again, the body will be in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, pursuant to the rule, i call up joint
resolution r.j.res. 48, making further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2011, and for other purposes and, and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: clerk will report the title of the joint resolution. the clerk: house joint resolution 48, joipt resolution making further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2011 and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 167, the gentleman from kentucky, mr. rogers, and the gentleman from washington, mr. dicks, each will control 30 minutes. the house will still be in order. once again, if you have conversations please take them off the floor or take your seats. those in the rear of the chamber, take your
conversations off the floor. the chair recognizes the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: i ask unanimous consent that all members have five lennell slative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on h.j.res. 248 and that i may include tabular material on the same. the speaker pro tempore: so ordered. mr. rogers: i yield myself such time as i may consume. i rise today to support h. -- h.j.res. 48, the fiscal year 2011 further continuing appropriations resolution. this temporary c.r. will allow us to avoid a government shutdown that could otherwise occur on march 18. . while cutting spending by $6 bill to control our nation's staggering deficits and to facilitate the continued recovery of our nation's economy.
we have made it clear -- the speaker pro tempore: the chair is finding it difficult to hear with conversations that are still going on in the back of the chamber. on all sides. the gentleman from kentucky deserves to be heard. the gentleman may continue. mr. rogers: we have made it clear that a government shut down is not an option. period. we will not allow this to happen on our watch. this bill funds the government for an additional three weeks until april 8, maintaining the critical support the government provides to the american people and allowing for the necessary time to complete negotiateations on a final long-term agreement for the remainder of this year. while funding the essential
government agencies and programs, this c.r. makes $6 bill in spending cuts. trimming $2 billion for every week to continue our efforts to rein in spending and putting a debt in our massive and unsustainable deficit. together with the $4 billion that we cut two weeks ago, mr. speaker, along with the $6 bill we cut in this bill, we will have cut $10 billion from current year spending. that makes it the largest rescission in american history. and so it is working. h.j.res. 48 reduces or terminates a total of 25 programs for a savings of $3.5 billion. these cuts include funding rescissions, reductions, and
program terminations. it also eliminates earmark accounts within agriculture, commerce, justice, science, financial services, general government, interior subcommittee jurisdictions. saving the american taxpayers $2.6 billion in earmark spending, which the president and both houses of congress have agreed they do not support. these cuts are the tough but necessary legwork required to help balance our budgets and halt the dangerous downward spiral of skyrocketing deficits. while short-term funding measures such as this is not the preferable way to fund the government, at this point it's vital. the budget for fiscal 2011, which was punted to us by the previous congress, is long, long overdue.
i agree with many of my colleagues that we must get down to business and come to final agreement as quickly as possible. our economy must not be threatened by perpetual government shut down which create uncertainty and a loss of confidence for job creators across the country. this continuing resolution provides us with an appropriate length of time for negotiateations, makes good -- negotiateations -- negotiations, makes good on our promises to provide certainty and stability, and allows essential federal programs to continue while these negotiations continue. i'm hopeful, mr. speaker, that this continuing resolution can be passed swiftly so we can turn our attention to the realities of our debt and deficit crisis and begin to put the nation on the right path for the next fiscal year.
2012. our constituents have asked us to whip our spending into shape , to provide solutions that help our economy grow and to help our citizens get jobs. this c.r. addresses their expectations responsibly over the short term, and is just one of the set of bills that we intend to produce over the next year that will continue to put the nation's budget back into balance and help our economy continue on the road to recovery. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. dicks: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. dicks: thank you, mr. speaker. today the house is considering the fifth continuing resolution for f.y. 2011 to keep the federal government running. here we are in the middling of march considering yet another
short-term bill that is supposed to buy us time to negotiate funding for the remainder of the fiscal year. i hope that profits to be true. we need -- proves to be true. we need to bring this to a conclusion. the extension reduces spending in f.y. 2011 by $45 billion below the president's request. it has another $6 billion in common ground spending reductions. in total the measure cuts $51 billion below the president's request. the idea behind the three-week extension is to provide an opportunity for the house, senate, and white house to settle all outstanding issues on fiscal year 2011 appropriations. i remain hopeful the negotiations will succeed and we will be able to give our agency some amount of certainty for what little remains of fiscal year 2011. today in the "new york times" there was a long article showing what kind of disruption occurs in federal agencies, including defense and social security and others, head
start, for example, because we haven't gotten these bills enacted. but i must remind my colleagues that if the c.r. extended for the remainder of the year, we would be cutting spending at historic $51 billion below the president's request. i am worried that cutting deeper will threaten a fragile economic recovery. most economists see cuts in h.r. 1 as a drag on the economic growth leading to the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs. as federal chairman bernanke projects, moody's mark zandi estimates 400,000 jobs lost for the remainder of this year and 700,000 more next year if h.r. 1 is enacted. goldman sachs thinks it would be as high as 2.4 million jobs lost. in yesterday's abc news/"washington post," the american people -- poll, the american people believe that the republican proposal cuts in
h.r. 61, will hurt the economic recovery. i am relieved that chairman rogers craft add bill that relies on previously identified reductions, a significant portion of which will hold earmarks. while i know my colleagues will not agree with and may not be able to support some of the specific program cuts included in this package, i appreciate that there was a genuine attempt to engage the senate and white house before they were chosen. most importantly, i'm tremendously relieved the chairman has stayed away from the controversial riders in this stopgap measure. he knows as i do that these riders would almost guarantee a veto by the administration which would almost guarantee a government shut down. an appropriation bill is not the place to decide enormously complex and controversial policy issues. i'm not pleased to be here today with yet another short-term bill. i sincerely hope that we will use this three-week period of
time judicially -- judiciously so the next time we consider a bill for 2011 it will be the last and for the remaining six months of this year. and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: mr. speaker, i yield three minutes to the gentleman from florida, a new member of our committee, mr. diaz-balart, three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. diaz-balart: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you very much, mr. chairman. there's a couple of things that are not debatable. i think the the american people understand and everybody understands that we are on an unsustainable path. we are on an unsustainable path as far as unemployment. the unemployment numbers are still frighteningly high. we are on an unsustainable path as far as borrowing and spending. so, frankly, we have a couple options here. we can continue that unsustainable path which is borrowing more and spending more, or we could change the way we are doing and try to get our fiscal act and fiscal house
in order. i commend the chairman, chairman rogers, for bringing forward a c.r., an extension, that does just that. that brings some sanity to this process. that reduces the amount of spending, that does so responsibly after reviewing programs and reviewing funding and reviewing what the federal government is doing. that's exactly what we have in front of us today. yes, we wish that we could have not just an extension, but we could go through the entire year. the reason by the way that we have been talking about this right now is because they failed to pass it so we are forced to do so. but we already passed a c.r. for the remaining part of the year. but unfortunately the senate has not been able or has not been willing to do their part. so we are forced once again to do an extension. this is a real extension that reduces cost, that reduces
expenses, that does so responsibly, and takes us off this unsustainable path. this does so by borrowing less, by spending less, and, yes, it will have the effect, mr. speaker, of getting our fiscal house in order and once again allow this country to start creating jobs in a real way not just piecemeal way. i urge our colleagues to support this responsible c.r. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington. mr. dicks: i yield two minutes to the distinguished lady from california, barbara lee, a member of the appropriations committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized for two minutes. ms. lee: thank you very much. i want to thank the gentleman for yielding. and to say today that once again i rise to oppose this continuing resolution. once again the majority is reading from a very familiar script that imposes budgetary
pain on vulnerable communities that can least endure these budget cuts. for a third consecutive time now, the majority is presenting a temporary spending bill total -- totaling $6 billion in spending cuts and $2.6 billion in earmark cuts to very meaningful programs. once again this c.r. does nothing to promote jobs. the majority pledge to develop jobs when they regained control of the house, but they continue to renege on their promise. it's important to emphasize that the promised cuts will hit communities that can least afford these hits. the loss of 185 million in state and local law enforcement assistance provided by byrne grants will further squeeze police budgets. with these cuts communities will be struggling to find funding to support vital police functions. at the same time, when drug use and drug trafficking is on the
rise, this c.r. includes cuts to cops to combat the spread of meth use and distribution. rather than continue to fund vital programs at the community level that work, we are witnessing budgeting through biweekly c.r.'s. these cuts will further harm highly vulnerable communities that greatly rely on cops, policing services, and technology grants. also my constituents regularly call my office asking what source of funding is going to replace earmarks? that historically have supported jobs, small businesses, schools, nonprofits. also i continue to press the administration witnesses on budget -- in budget justification hearings regarding the impact of the elimination of earmarks and what alternative resources will replace them? thank you. i hope we vote no on this c.r. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: mr. speaker, i
yield two minutes to the chairman of the transportation, h.u.d. subcommittee on appropriations, the gentleman from iowa, mr. latham. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from iowa investigated for two minutes -- is recognized for two minutes. mr. latham: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the chairman for yielding time. i do rise in support of this joint resolution. it's not because i want to, but because it's necessary to support it today. it's necessary because we are stuck in a situation that results from the previous majority's lack of completing its work last year. i think we need to step back and just look at the situation that we are handed this year. for the first time since the budget act of 1974, mr. speaker, the house failed to pass a budget last year. the house also failed, except for two occasions, to pass
appropriations bills. the senate did nothing. so what we are left with today is this mess that we are in. with no fiscal year 2011 budget, no appropriation bills passed last year. nothing done. so we are given this mess today to clean up. what we need is a little more time, but in the meantime we are going to cut spending, $6 billion of cuts, $2 billion a week for the three weeks that this bill will be in place. . it's not enough. we've got to look at the overall problem we have in this country, $14.3 trillion of tet, an annual one-year deficit of $1.65 trillion. now while this just scratches the surface, we've got to address long term the spending here in washington, d.c. we've got to look at not just the discretionary side, which
this bill does, but look at all the entitlements. we're only addressing about 15% of the whole budget in this bill. we've go to make sure we look at the -- we've got to make sure we look at the other 85%, which is mandatory, other spending out there that cause this explosion of debt that we have. what this is is a very good first step of going forward to really get a handle on the spending and also, mr. speaker, i would ask that the white house finally get involved and show some leadership as far as trying to get our fiscal house in order. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington. mr. dicks: i yield three minutes to the distinguished gentleman from virginia, mr. moran, the ranking member on the interior and related agencies, appropriations and e.p.a. and also a former chairman of that committee. mr. moran. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. moran: i thank the
distinguished member from washington and thank him for his leadership. but he knows as well as do, i trust, all of the members, that this is no way to run a government. lurching back and forth like a drunken sailor, the agencies not knowing when or whether they're going to get their money. actually, i should take that back. the navy would never conduct operations like this. and the distinguished chairman from kentucky well knows that this is not the way we want to be doing business. but yet, here we are. with another c.r. we just had a hearing this week with the forest service. as the members know, they hire hundreds, sometimes thousands of temporary seasonal workers to fight fires in our nation's
forests. they can't do that, they don't know how much money they're going to have. and the folks that they would hire seasonally, as a result, can't take those jobs, don't know what they're going to do. it disrupts people's lives. hundreds of thousands of people's lives, millions of people's lives indirectly. this is no way to run a government. why are we going it? because we can't agree on h.r. 1. and we shouldn't agree on h.r. 1 as passed by the house. so many riders that should have gone through legislative committees that did in fact when they were put in the bill after careful consideration and we gave them 10 minutes of debate and then -- in the wee hours of the morning and stripped that language from the authorizing legislation. that's no way to run a government. and beyond those riders there's
thousands of programs that are being cut willy nilly. one such program, for example, national oceanic and atmospheric administration. they provided the early warning to people on the west coast when they knew about the sunesune. -- about the tsunami. yet we are told by noaa that the 28% cut in this bill for noaa would dismantle our early warning system. to save a few million dollars. that's just wrong. you know, there was just an article, people are beginning to realize other things that are cut in this program to save a few dollars. $285 million is not a few dollars but consider what happens when you cut $285 million out of the program integrity section of the internal revenue service. they collect $10 from every $1
we spent. and so you cut out $285 million and it costs you about $3 billion. in revenue that should be collected. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is issued an additional minute. mr. moran: the only point i started by suggesting and i'm sure it's not in contention, this is no way to run a government. we have a responseability -- responsibility on the probabilities committee to fund these agencies, to determine our priorities, to reflect the interest and the will of the american people. this process does not do that. the bill h.r. 12 does not do that. -- h.r. 1 does not do that. the american people deserve better. they deserve careful consideration. we need to cut, but we need to
cut responsibly. this bill will pass but this should be the last c.r. let's get a full year appropriations bill passed as soon as possible. >> would the gentleman yield? mr. moran: i'd be happy to yield. mr. dicks: there was an article in "the washington post" about how house g.o.p. spending cuts would add to more spending later. i yield myself an additional minute. one thing i'm most concerned about is the women and infant care program, w.i.c., where you provide nutrition to an expectant mother who is probably on medicaid and help her baby to be born in a more healthy way. we find out that hospitals in this cupry provide $26 billion of health care for these same babies who are born premature. pay me now or pay me later. in this case, it would be a lot more. the i.r.s. is another example.
noaa weather satellite is another example in thed my tholve tsunami and earthquake, we need to be making reasonable judgments and i hope we can make reasonable judgments. i happen to be the ranking on defense. we can cut money out of defense, we can do more in that area. i just think we've got to be careful and when this final package comes together, we've got to cut out the ones that would be revenue raisers. mr. moran: i thank the gentleman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: i yield myself one minute. the gentleman from virginia says the public deserves that we pass appropriations bills. and i could not agree with him more. his majority last year failed to pass a single bill. out of the 12 we were supposed to pass.
that's why we're here. we're trying to clean up the mess that the gentleman from virginia's party left us when we took office in january. and so that's why we're here. yes, it's a terrible way to do business. and this should be the last c.r. extension that we pass before we have an agreement with the other body and the white house on the rest of this year. however, mr. speaker, again, the gentleman's party and the senate refuses to pass a bill and lay something on the table. we are going to the conference table to negotiate and we're sitting there by ourselves. the other body will not come forward with a proposition. until that time, i don't know what we do. now i yield three minutes to the chairman of the homeland security subcommittee on appropriations, the gentleman from alabama, mr. aderholt.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. aderholt: thank you, chairman rogers, for yielding. the bill before us today is another necessary step in addressing the national imperative of reducing our debt while keeping the government operating. essential functions like homeland security are sustained under this bill an sustained in that a fiscally responsible way. within the more than $6 billion of spend regular duckses contained in this bill is a rescission of $107 million to customs and border protection a rescission of unobligated balances requested by the administration for f.y. 2011, supported by the minority, passed by this body as part of h.r. 1 and included in the senate appropriations committee recently reported bill. but this bill also sends a very clear signal to the white house and to the senate. as a speaker and chairman rogers -- as the speaker and chairman rogers have stated, no one wants a government
shutdown. the only people talking about the shutdown of the government are those avoiding the tough decisions and seeking to shift blame from their own failure to act. instead of excuses, the american people want results. less spending an a leaner, more effective government. that's exactly what this temporary stopgap bill delivers. i couldn't agree more with what the chairman just stated a couple of minutes ago. congress didn't get its work done and the senate has yet to provide a viable alternative to the house-passed h.r. 1. a bill that stands as the only year-long spending measure for f.y. 2011 passed by either congress -- chamber of congress. so complaints about a short-term stopgap bill like this ring hollow when the house-passed solution has been on the negotiating table for almost a month. the president proposed spending level for f.y. 2011 is no long
aeroviable option, a fact acknowledged not only by the administration itself but by both parties and both chameboferse congress system of the time to get to work and fill our duty to the american people is long overdue. congress needs to deliver what the american people have so resoundingly demanded. i can only hope the administration and the senate also acknowledge the reality of our nation's fiscal cries aand -- crisis and demonstrate resolve to cut spending and come to the table with a viable budget for the remainder of this year. the american people demand noless. i thank the gentleman, the chairman of the appropriations committee for yielding and i yield back the balance -- i would be happy to yield to the chairman. >> it was stated a moment ago -- mr. rogers: it was stated that this c.r. cuts noaa and tsunami
predictions money but that's not so. the only thing that cuts money from noaa is the earmarks, and yes, we cut earmarks but they had nothing to do with tsunami warnings. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington. mr. dicks: i was referring to h.r. 1, not this c.r. the gentleman from kentucky is absolutely correct. mr. rogers: h.r. 1 doesn't cut tsunami warning moneys. mr. dicks: there's some things in there that i think no one thinks would have an effect on their weather forecast -- that i think noaa thinks would have an effect on their weather forecast. mr. rogers: they're wrong. mr. dicks: i want to yield two minutes to the delegate from the district of columbia, eleanor holmes norton. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. ms. norton: look, the majority has chosen to run the government, the federal
government from c.r. to c.r., but the majority has no right to inflict this operational outrage on the local funds of a local jurisdiction, the district of columbia. it may want -- the majority may want to incur for the federal government the operational difficulties, after all the the district of columbia delivers services to federal officials including the president, federal buildings, foreign embassies and the like. but does the majority really want to risk the -- to put the district and its operations at risk or to place what wall street almost surely will do, a risk premium on the district due to the fact that we are being put from c.r. to c.r.? this is a fragile economy for every big city, the d.c. local
budget was approved a year ago in the city and last summer, by the appropriations committee. yet the district of columbia is being held hostage to a federal fight, although the district of columbia can do nothing to free itself from this federal fight. i have tried to get the district on successive c.r.'s so we could spend our own money all year. there is no disapproval of that here, i wager that very few members even know that the district would close down if the federal government closed down, would be perplexed by it, would have no objection to our spending our own local money all year long, we raise and manage $8 billion, we have a right to spend our local funds without being dragged into a federal fight. you can't run a big city from c.r. to c.r. i ask you to find a way between
now and three weeks to free d.c. to run its own city for the rest of the federal year. let my people go. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: i yield two minutes to a new member of our committee, the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. dick. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. dent: the responsible cuts of $2 billion per week, it should be noted that there's broad, bipartisan agreement to nearly all the cuts contained in this legislation. basely, everything in this legislation was also contained in h.r. 1. we should note too that if this legislation is enacted this registration legislation would represent the largest spending cut on discretionary programs in history when you combine this with what was cut two weeks ago, the $4 billion. if enacted this will represent
the largest spending cut on discretionary spending cut should we enact this legislation. i know some people think that this bill doesn't go far enough, but it certainly does represent a very big step forward. the cuts that are contained in here, we're eliminating $2.6 billion in earmark funding from agriculture, c.j.s., financial services, the interior, the cuts include rescissions, reductions and program terminations and i think we all understand, too, that if we pass this, this will prevent a government shutdown and we need to fleavepbt while these negotiations can continue. . this represents responsible cuts, broad bipartisan agreement. i say let's cut some spending and let's cut it now. and let's cut it today. take yes or an answer. don't snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. this is the right thing to do.
and the american people will appreciate it. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from washington. mr. dicks: i yield four minutes to the distinguished democratic quhip, mr. hoyer -- whip, mr. hoyer from maryland. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for four minutes. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i'm not sure whether i rise for or against this. very frankly, because i think this process is not the process that we ought to be pursuing. i think in that context i speak for the chairman and for the ranking member and for most members in this body. but i want -- i was going to wait a while then i heard mr. dent of pennsylvania speak and i want to reiterate this point that he made because i made it last week in my colloquy with the majority leader. i made the point that we are about to make the largest single reduction in discretionary spending that we have made. the gentleman said in history, i was more modest and said in the 30 years i have been here.
in any event this is not an insubstantial cut. the problem those of us have on this side of the aisle is, it is not enough for a large number of your folks. then they have said so. and the heritage foundation has said so and the family research council has said so and some of your members have said so. now, the fact of the matter is this is a lousy way to run a railroad. we are trying to run the largest enterprise in the world in two-week segments. it is costly to the private sector. it is extraordinarily inefficient for the public sector, and it is demoralizing for the private sector who deals with the government and for the public employees we have asked to perform the service that is we have set forth as policy.
and so i say at this juncture, this ought to be the last of this type. we need to reach agreement. now, i say to my friend from pennsylvania, because it is the largest cut, i think we have come a long way. you said you wanted to cut $100 billion. now you're not cutting the $41 billion that we cut. you were using the 2011 baseline. that's how you got your $100 billion. $41 billion we have all agreed is gone. we are going to freeze at 2010 and go below that. but we have cut $41 billion and we agree on that. now, you use the 2011, that wasn't our figure first, you used it in september. we used it in december. so my view is, we have agreed on $41 billion. you don't say that, you say we are between zero and 60. i understand your rationale, it's your figure, your baseline
you used in september in your pledge to america. if we have gone 41 and we are going to go another 10 or 15, what i ask of you is in light of the fact, as mr. dent points out, we have already done the deepest cut under republicans, under democrats, under any of us. it is time to hear from you what is your alternative to make a deal? now, compromise is a prettier word, but we need to come to agreement. if we are going to serve our country and those who serve our country, then we need to come to agreement because they elected all of us. none of us has any greater superiority. we are all the same. and we need to come to agreement. i don't have much time but i'll be glad to yield to you. can you take time -- mr. rogers: would the gentleman talk to his colleagues over in
the other body and tell them to pass something we can negotiate on? mr. hoyer: reclaiming my time, 435 of us have tried to talk to the people in the other body. but i will tell you under the constitution of the united states, we have the responsibility of initiating bills. read the constitution. read the constitution. we sent h.r. 1 over there as my good friend, the former speaker of idaho, says to me, and they didn't pass it. it's not their responsibility to initiate. that didn't go any place. may i have one additional minute? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington controls the time. mr. dicks: 30 seconds. mr. hoyer: i will say to you, we can wring our hands and say the senate is not doing its job. we are not in the senate. we are here. let us come to agreement. and we know the agreement is going to be someplace in between where you are and where we are. we know that.
but what we don't know is what you can pass. what you don't know is what you can pass. you don't know what your caucus will do. i understand that. you're deeply divided in my opinion. and we need to know because it's not just us here that are adversely affected. let us come to agreement. let us stop this process of funding government in very short cycles. it is not good for our country. it's not good for the people who work for this country. it's not good for the people who are doing work around the world. i yield back the balance of my time. mr. dicks: mr. speaker, can you tell the chairman and myself what our time remaining is? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington has 12 3/4 minutes remaining. the gentleman from kentucky has 16 minutes remaining. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: of which i yield three minutes to the
distinguished chairman of the interior subcommittee on appropriations, mr. simpson. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from idaho is recognized for three minutes. mr. simpson: i thank the speaker. i can tell the gentleman that just spoke, the minority whip, good friend of mine, what we can pass in this house and what our conference will agree to, and that's the $61 million in cuts or $100 million overall we have already agreed to and already passed. we can pass that in this house. now, i have heard that this is no way to run a railroad. my good friend from virginia said this is no way to run a government. i have heard this is operational outrage. i will tell you the outrage here is that we are having to do this because the majority, the former majority, when they had the majority in the house, the majority in the senate, and the white house, failed to pass an appropriation bill. they left the american people and this country with this pile of wrap. they should not complain about how we try to clean this up.
mr. speaker, by the end of this week the appropriations subcommittee which i am privileged to chair, the interior and environment subcommittee, will have had 12 budget oversight hearings over the past three weeks. that's 12 hearings addressing the fiscal 2012 budget. that we will soon be writing. it's worth noting we are now 5 1/2 months into the fiscal year 2011 and we still don't have a budget to fund the government through the end of the current fiscal year. the c.r. we are considering today keeps the government operating for another three weeks, and you're right, we need to solve this within the next three weeks. the problem is, you cannot negotiate with a body across the rotunda that fails to act. we can't be the only ones at the table. we have to have something to negotiate with. we don't have that. this c.r. saves taxpayers $6 billion including $650 million in spending cuts from the interior subcommittee accounts that republicans, democrats, and the administration agree are reasonable and supportable on a bipartisan basis.
the overall savings achieved through this c.r. at the rate of $2 billion per week is three-week equivalent to the $100 billion of cuts achieved in the long-term c.r. passed by the house republicans several weeks ago. in the interior budget alone we got earmarks, we got the national park service preserve america program, eliminated it, and other programs, save america's treasures and the national park service, programs that the administration did not request funding for in their 2012 budget. so these are things that are agreed on by both republicans and democrats. now that the senate has voted down two versions of the year-long c.r., the republican version known as h.r. 1 that cut spending by $100 billion and the democratic version that cut substantially less, it's time for both sides to come together on a funding bill for the rest of this year. the truth is that we really need to get the fiscal year 2011 budget written, passed, and signed into law so we can turn our attention to next year's budget. in the midst of the back and
forth debate on spending, it's important to remember that these funding bills don't write themselves. our appropriations committee staff have been working day and night, seven days a week, for months now writing one c.r. after another even as they prepare for hearings and studied budget proposals for next year. i encourage my colleagues to support this c.r. to keep the government opened while both parties work to identify an acceptable level of spending cuts for the rest of the year. we can and should cut more from the spending budget. i encourage my colleagues to support this c.r. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington. mr. dicks: i yield two minutes to the distinguished lady from hawaii, ms. hirono, who is going to correct the record on the noaa issue. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from hawaii is recognized for two minutes. ms. hirono: i thank the gentleman for yielding. first of all the cuts to noaa and our weather services are contained in h.r. 1 and we have not reached agreement on h.r. 1 which is why we are doing yet another c.r. and believe me those kinds of
cuts to noaa and our weather service will have an impact on our ability to implement early warning systems. some of you may not know that hawaii has already suffered millions and millions of dollars of damages as a result of the tsunami, and, yes, it does not compare at all to the tragedy that the japanese people are facing, but nonetheless thank goodness our early warning systems were in place. now, as to this c.r. i rise in opposition to this c.r. which continues the republican strategy of cutting $2 billion every week from programs that support jobs and our families. i want to focus on just one program being cut out of many by the way that affect real people and real ways, that is particularly troubling to me in this c.r. this is the elimination of all funding for the watershed and flood prevention operations program, popularly known as
pl-566. this 30 million program means a lot to small rural communities nationwide. for hawaii the decline of sugar and pineapple industries has forced us to transition from large-scale plantation agriculture to small-scale farming. pl-5 6 has been the only federal program that has really worked to deal with our agriculture water issues. and it is a single most important federal agriculture program for hawaii. hawaii is the most food import dependent state in the entire country. so agriculture self-sufficiency is a priority for us which is one reason why continued funding for pl-566 project is so critical. in addition, pl-566 provides flood prevention for small communities the army corps does not serve. they include the ditch water shed project, to rehabilitate a 26-mile long irrigation ditch that provides water to hundreds, hundreds of small farmers in the hawaii island.
may i have another 30 seconds? mr. dicks: i yield another 30 seconds. ms. hirono: a project providing water to 170 farmers and ranchers on maui. and a project -- so these long-term projects help to build our local economy and create jobs. stopping these projects in midstream is irresponsible, un safe, it makes no economic sense at all. most of these projects are well on their way. we need to continue funding these programs to support our communities, support jobs, and this program has long held bipartisan support. in fact last year i signed a joint letter led by ag committee chair lucas urging funding for this program. mr. dicks: in going back and looking, noaa operations research and facilities in h.r. 1 is cut by $454.3 billion.
one of the officials there said what would happen in the continuing resolution there will be a dismantling of our nation's early warning system, the president of the national weather certificate viss, said in a telephone interview. it will result in a roughly 30% cut in the budget of the national weather service. the current plans call for the weather service to close individual offices for about a month at a time on a rolling basis. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from kentucky. . mr. rogers: i yield three minutes to mr. crenshaw of florida. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. crenshaw: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i rise to encourage my colleagues to vote in favor of this continuing resolution. two reasons. number one, it keeps us on the
path to put the brakes on this runaway spending that's gone around this place too long. it continues us to get the place where we start a culture of savings instead of this culture of spending. the second reason to vote for this, of course is to make sure we don't shut down the government. to give us a little more time to try to final negotiate the spending levels for next year. somebody asked the question, is this the best way to fund the government? of course it's not. no way. it would have been a whole lot better if last year under the democratic leadership in this house we had a budget before this house that would pass. but that didn't happen. it would have been better last year during the session if the democratic leadership had gone through regular order, we'd passed the appropriations bill and then the government would be funded for 2011.
but they didn't do that. and it would have been a whole lot better after this house got together, made some tough choices, set some priorities, made difficult decisions, passed spending bill that cut $100 billion out of this year's spending. sent it down to the senate. it would have been better if they'd taken that up and pass it -- passed it, or at least done something. but they didn't do that. so here we are. we find ourselves another c.r., three more weeks. but let me tell you, these are difficult times. and in difficult times, leaders have to lead. we've got to sit down together and establish the priorities we have for spending. we've got to make tough choices. that's what every american family does. that's what every american business does. if we're going to get this economy moving again, we need to settle this once and for all. i hope we pass this continuing
resolution, that this will indeed be the last time we do this. three weeks, sit down, have that other body sit down and negotiate with us, it takes two to tango as they say. we sent the whole ball of wax down there, they didn't like it, now we're sending a little bit at a time but we're honoring the pledge to cut $100 billion. if you cut $2 billion every week, that's $100 billion. this is $6 billion more on top of the $4 billion we cut. that's no way to set they will year, but let's settle it once and for all, let's pass this, move ahead and get this thing done. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington. mr. dicks: i yield two minutes to the distinguished gentlelady from hi, ms. kaptur, a senior member of the appropriations committee and i think the longest serving woman in the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for
two minutes. ms. kaptur: i thank the gentleman and i urge my colleagues to vote no on this continuing resolution. it cuts money for jobs for people and cuts social services to our senior citizens when gas prices are going up and food prices are going up. jobs that clean up our bruin field site, it cuts public broadcasting the only decent broadcasting with the trash that's on the air today, and cuts the save america's treasures program. so people say, where are you going to get the money? let me tell you where the money is and what's not on the table in trying to plans the federal budget. how about the profits of the wall street big sticks, morgan
stanley, citigroup, they took last year $51 billion in profits. $51 billion at the expense of the american people in this great recession we're endure, they're mape as clams. their top executives took $26 million, not counting their stock options. we didn't touch a penny of their bonuses, can't do that. they're paying at an 11% tax rate when businesses in my district have to pay a 35%. what's fair about that? we could have $13 billion, $14 billion if they just paid at the same rate, just for last year and oil prices, the american people are being gouged across this country, exxon made $9 billion in the third quarter of last year, guess how much they paid in taxes? a big goose egg. zero. zero. and british petroleum, $5 billion in one quarter. how much did they pay?
where's that on the table? so we say to the american people, you can't balance a trillion-dollar deficit on 14% of the budget. what you're doing, you're hurting the american people. let's take it from those who have much and give nothing. i yield back my remaining time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: i yield three minutes to a hard working member of our committee, the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. cole. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. cole: mr. speaker, i rise to urge the adoption of h.j.r. 48, the continuing appropriations for this fiscal year. it seems to me we've got three questions we ought to address in the course of this debate. first an elemently, why are we here? second, what does the bill do? and third, what are the consequences with the bill isn't passed. weir here for the simple reason that the last congress that my
good friends on the other side ran never passed a budget, never passed a single appropriations bill. we're here because the democratic majority failed to do its work. we're also here because the current democratic majority in the other body has so far failed to do its work. i remind my colleagues, we actually passed legislation, sent it over. ial remind my colleagues that the one proposal in front of the senate that got the most votes us the republican h r. 1. -- h.r. 1. but nevertheless they failed to give us something to negotiate against. it's their obligation in the senate at some point to have a common negotiating position. i don't know how we can sit down and negotiate otherwise. we're here because of a democratic failure in the last congress and this one. second, what does this bill do? it's common sense, it cuts and reduces 25 programs, saving $35.5 billion. most of those programs -- $3.5 billion.
most of those programs the president agreed isn't necessary. it buys time but it also keeps the government running and keeps us on course to reduce spending at $2 billion a week, something my colleagues and i are committed. finally, what happens if he we don't pass this bill? there are some that want to spen more, some that want to spend less. the first thing that happens is we shut down the government, something all of us know is not a wise thing to tchosme sec thing that happens is we probably create financial panic in the country and harm a fradgic economy. and finally, the last thing that happens and i think actually the most important, is we raise fundamental doubts amongst the american people as to whether or not this institution and we as elected officials have the capacity to actually address and solve our problems. so i think we need to pass this bill, we need to give our friends on the other side of the aisle, particularly in the senate, another three weeks to
see if they can possibly come up with a negotiating position. i'm confident once those negotiations begin that our speaker will keep the government running, will bargain in good faith but will cut spending as we're committed to do. with that, i yield back my time, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from washington. mr. dicks: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. dicks: i want to take a moment to congratulate two longtime staff members who are leaving us after years of service. beverly served on the -- serves as clerk on the homeland subcommittee and another subcommittee before becoming the first woman staff leader. he was part of the creation of
the 9/11 commission and the department of homeland security and during hurricane katrina. she helped craft the recovery and reinvestment act, the recovery act that saved tens of thousands of american jobs and kept this country from slipping into another great depression. we thank bev for agreeing to stay on with us and help with the committee's transition ancon garage late her on her many years of service in the executive branch as well as for us. she will be miss bud we wish her well in her new endeavors. i want to extend my deep appreciation to chris who served on the interior appropriations subcommittee since 1995. most recently as minority clerk. chris began his career with the u.s. forest service before coming to the committee as a detailee. he found himself in the middle of some of the most contentious environmental policyties putes but also remained a consummate professional. while i chaired the interior
subcommittee, i relied heavily on his solid judgment and wise counsel. i wish him the best as he leaves the committee an thank him for his service. i reserve the balance of my time. mr. rogers: will the gentleman yield? mr. dicks: i yield to the chairman. mr. rogers: let me join on behalf of us on this side in thanking those two wonderful individuals for dedicated public service. they have worked hard on behalf of the public and they deserve our utmost thanks which i offer at this time. thanks for yielding. mr. dicks: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. simpson. mr. simpson: i echo the comments of my good friend mr. dicks. chris is a one of the most professional and widely respected individuals on the
appropriations committee staff. his dry wit and friendly disposition will be greatly missed and his institutional knowledge of forest service issues will be impossible to replace. we appreciate your dedication and commitment over your many years of public service and wish you the best in your future endeavors. mr. ticks: thank you. how much time do i have remaining? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has five minutes remaining. mr. dicks: does the gentleman have further speakers? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. rogers: the gentleman from kentucky has 7 1/2 -- may i inquire as to the time remaining? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has 7 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. rogers: i yield to the gentleman from alabama, mr. bonner. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. bonner: i urge my colleagues to support this continuing resolution as unpleasant as it is. our democrat colleagues, our republican colleagues, we agree, we don't like being in the situation we're in. but we're in this situation
nevertheless. our colleagues remember that for the first time since 1974 we didn't pass a budget last year. we didn't pass a single appropriations bill as the chairman of the committee has noted. we don't like being in this situation. but we're in this situation. and yet, i think there's a real disconnect between washington and the american people. i was listening to the television news this sunday when senate kyl put the budget debate in perspective. while rarely do house members quote senators, i think it's worth it. we talk about trillions and billions and millions but if you were had a $10,000 budget, $10,000 budget which most americans can more easily identify with. and 40% of that is actually borrowed money. what we're talking about with h.r. 1, the basis upon which this c.r. is going forward, we'd be shaving off $28 from a
$10,000 budget. mr. speaker, ladies and gentlemen, the reason that congress has continued to draw such unpopular respect with the american people is that there is a disconnect. last year, we had a $223 billion deficit, the largest in history. we're talking about shaving $6 billion until we can get a resolution between the house and the senate and encourage the white house to join the mix. i thank the chairman for allowing me to speak out and encourage our colleagues to support this c.r. 13r0eu7 the gentleman from washington. mr. dicks: i -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington. mr. dicks: i yield one minute to the leader of the democratic party in the house, nancy pelosi of california. the speaker pro tempore: the minority leader is recognized for one minute. ms. pelosi: i thank the gentleman for yielding and i thank him for his hard work to help keep the government open. while many of us will not agree
on the legislation before us today, we know it is necessary for us to pr seed. so i don't -- to proceed. i don't rise to oppose or support the legislation but instead to comment on the situation we're in. we're debating a short-term bill to keep the government open on a week-by-week basis. this is not any way to run a government or a business. it certainly is not the way as the military generals have told us to protect the national security of our country on a week-to-week basis. democrats will work with republicans on legislation that will create jobs that will strengthen the middle class and reduce the deficit. when all three of these scores, this -- on all three of these scores, this republican spending bill fails. democrats have long fought for fiscal responsibility as a top priority of this congress. we won't go into the history
right now but it's well known that president clinton took us out of a period of deficit into his last five budgets being in surplus or in balance. . president bush turned that around when he became president and we have to dig ourselves out of the deficit he took us into. last year we passed a $41 billion cut. we did so with one republican vote. $41 billion. democrats in the lead on fiscal soundness. on the subject of jobs, it's been 11 weeks, the 11th week of the republican majority in the congress and we have not seen one bill that will create jobs. in fact the only bill coming from the republicans, the only legislation that has come to the floor to create jobs would be the democratic initiative, one, to build america bonds, to build the infrastructure of
america to keep it ahead of the game in terms of innovation. build america bonds. republicans overwhelmingly rejected that. the other bill was a bill to keep our jobs from going overseas by rewarding businesses that sent jobs overseas. democrats said no to that idea. republicans said no to our legislation. zero jobs bills in 11 weeks. quite different from the record of president obama coming into office two years ago with a democratic congress. president obama was a job creator from day one. one week an one day after the president's inaugural address calling for swift, bold action now to create jobs, the house of representatives passed the recovery bill which was then passed by the senate and signed into law in a matter of weeks. that legislation created or saved 3.6 million jobs. this is important in terms of the deficit because it produced jobs, produced revenue into the
treasury that helped reduce the deficit. tax cuts for the wealthy has been the job creators that the republicans had put forth in the bush administration incident, do not create jobs, and increase the deficit. so we are at a place where we again, 11 weeks, the republican -- not by my measure, just look to some of the fed chairman ben bernanke said the republican spending bill would cost not a trivial amount of jobs. mark zandi, a republican economist, said the republican spending bill would destroy 700,000 jobs. goldman sachs said the republican spending bill would reduce economic groith by 1.5% to 2%. 320 economists sent a letter calling republican cuts a threat to our economy, long-term economic competitiveness and strength -- and the strength of our current economic recovery. they all agree to one extent or
another that the republican agenda is taking us in the wrong direction. that agenda is manifested in the continuing resolution, h.r. 1. anti-budget approach they are taking. in fact, in addition to not creating jobs, the republican initiative is making matters worse. many of us have come to the floor to talk about budgets year in and year out. we all say that our national budget should be a statement of our national values. what is important to our country should be reflected in the allocation of our resources. we want to have that debate on values rather than just on cuts. we all agree we have to get rid of waste, fraud, and abuse, duplication, obsolescence, and the rest. the g.a.o. has given as you blueprint for that. we all agree we must reduce the deficit of the fiscal commission has given us a road
map for that. we can agree or disagree with some of it, but the fact is it gifts us--gives us a blueprint for how to go forward and we should take heed of that. that blueprint says we should not be making cuts right now that will be harmful to our recovery. and yet that's exactly what the republican initiatives do. this statement of val ue, we have this debate, it's not a debate about are we going to cut six million or three million seniors off meals on wheels. it's about who we are as a country. how do we protect the american people both in our national security and our neighborhoods? how we educate our children to keep -- to make them happy but also to keep us competitive as innovators, internationally. how we maintain healthy america, not just about their health care but about their good healthier, the safety of the food that they eat. it's about the creation of
jobs. i believe we have an obligation as a government to be job creators which give people the means to find their own happiness but also bring revenue into the treasury if we are just speaking pragmatically and not in terms of value. i don't believe it's just about the dollars. it's about the values that we have to have this debate. unfortunately the bills that we are being presented with, h.r. 1, are like a balloon, sweeze it, pops out there, it -- squeeze it here, pops out there, it doesn't change anything for the better. it makes matters worse. so again as we consider our budgetary decisions as a discussion as a statement of the national values, we have to remember that the greatness of our country depends on the strengthening of our middle class and that we have to do that by creating jobs and we
certainly must reduce the deficit. now we are waiting at the negotiating table for the republicans to show that they are willing to work together. we have cut the $41 billion with one republican vote. that they are willing to work together to reach an agreement that is a statement of our values. i think we can do that. many of us have worked together on the appropriations committee over the years. i urge our republican colleagues to join us in our efforts to create jobs, to strengthen middle class, and to reduce the deficit and to do so in the interest of the american people. that's why i think this vote today, people will vote however they view their own statement about it. but the big vote that is coming up is the vote on the continuing resolution on the long-term basis to keep government opened and functioning for people, again, in a way that is a statement of values for our great country. with that i yield back the
balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: i yield two minutes to a new member of our committee, hardworking member, mr. womack from the state of arkansas. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arkansas is recognized for two minutes. mr. womack: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you to the gentleman from kentucky for your leadership on the appropriations committee and for yielding me time here this morning. yes, it's true. i came here on january 5. just a few weeks ago i put my hand up and took the oath of office. as i did i'm reminded of the fact that at that precise time in my life, i was taking the oath of office, already three months into the fiscal year. i show me what business, what governmental jurisdiction, anywhere in america, is effectively and efficiently managed when you are operating without a budget already three months into the budget year?
look, i was a mayor of a very dynamic city in northwest arkansas. we never did that. we couldn't survive by passing our budget sometime during the course of the ongoing year. so our conference and in particular is leading by example. we are providing a leadership example for the spending cuts that so many people around america have said over and over again that we have to achieve. look, america gets it. we are a trillion and a half dollars in deficit in this f.y. and we are 14-plus trillion dollars in debt. we have to do something about spending. and, look, it's all about the ends game. and this is where this side of the aisle and that side of the aisle can come to agreement. that we know that the end game is about the creation of jobs. the ideological difference about how we get there, i think, is what divides us. but i'm a firm believer, any
businessman will tell you, any mayor, any county judge, any governmental official will tell you that your balance sheet drives a lot of things. i think fundamental to that balance sheet is how much you are in debt. because how much you are in debt in business is tied to your assets. in government it's tied to your capacity to tax. and right now one of the fundamental problems about growing jobs in this economy is the uncertainty that hangs over the job creators in america. unnecessary and overburdensome regulation -- would the gentleman yield another 30 seconds? possibly. let me finish by saying i urge support of h.j.r. 48 and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. rogers: may i inquire of the time remaining, mr. speaker? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky has 3 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from washington has four minutes remaining. the gentleman from washington.
mr. dicks: how many speakers does the gentleman have? two? why don't you go ahead with your speaker then you finish. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from virginia, mr. hurt. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for two minutes. mr. hurt: i thank the chairman for yielding. mr. speaker, today i rise in support of this temporary continuing resolution and urge my colleagues to do the same. as we debate this measure, let's remember why we are here. let's remember that on november 2 the people of virginia's fifth district and people across this country sent a message to washington, a message to republicans and to democrats, the message was urgent, it was clear, and it was loud. the message sent was that now is the time to stop the government spending, stop the government borrowing, and stop the raid on our children's future. so what have we found since we got here? we find that our president and the last congress despite enjoying great majorities in
each chamber completely and totally failed six months ago to live up to its most fundamental responsibility to adopt a budget for fiscal year 2011. because of their failure to lead, the american people still six months later do not have a budget. after the house worked in the early morning hours nearly a month ago and sent h.r. 1 down the hall to the opposite chamber, what has the senate done? they left town. they failed to adopt any proposal to fund the government for the rest of the fiscal year. what has thep president done? while continuing to fail to lead on 20911 budget, he's now propose add budget for fiscal year 2012 thatnot increase spending -- that does not decrease spending but nearly doubles funding in the next 10 years. the senate and white house have not heard the message from the people in the last election and are continuing to fail to lead. now is the time for this congress to listen.
now is the time for this congress to act. i believe that the majority in this house is listening and this temporary continuing resolution gets us one step closer to fulfilling the purpose given us by the american people. cut government spending and reduce government borrowing for the sake of future generations. simply put, by voting in favor of this measure today we are putting a $6 billion deposit on the account for our children and grandchildren who for far too long have been forgotten here in washington. i thank the gentleman -- the chairman. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington. mr. dicks: i yield myself the remaining time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for four minutes. mr. dicks: madam speaker, i rise to review the bidding here. we are down to the end of this debate on this continuing resolution. and i hope and as i note
chairman rogers hopes, that this will be the last continuing resolution and that working together we can come together on a solution to the f.y. 2011 budget. now, i i heard repeatedly, repeatedly, and i even mentioned this in my last statement, and the next thing i knew it was on cantor's website, but back in 2007 the distinguished gentleman from kentucky will remember, that when we took over power and won the election in 2006, most of the -- nine or 10 of the appropriation bills are not enacted and the democrats had to pass a bill in february enacting all of these things. so maybe we learned that lesson from you all over there. i hope you'll remember it because you seem to -- like this has never happened before.
well, that's not one -- that's number one. number two, the american people in a "washington post" abc poll yesterday over the weekend said that they are worried that the cuts in h.r. 1 will hurt the economy. it was narrow. it was 45-41, but 71% of the people said the problem was that your side isn't engaging. and that they blame the republicans for not getting this deal. why would they think that? i think the reason for it is when -- the first rogers amendment proposal came out, that was kind of a reasonable approach, but that was rejected and then they doubled the amount of these cuts, and the cuts became very severe and very questionable. . there was a story in "the
washington post" today that lays out if you cut food inspectors, you're going to pay for it. if you cut w.i.c. funding, you're going to pay for it, billions for these children. i point these things out, cutting head start, this was perceived by the american people as too extreme. that's why you can't get anybody -- the senate rejected h.r. 1, the president rejected h.r. 1. we need to have reasonable people sit down and work out a compromise and not let the government be shut down. and i believe that this should be the last c.r. and that we all should agree here today that this is going to be the last c.r. and we are committed to getting this resolved and that's what the american people also said in this abc/"washington post" poll, not that i follow the polls much, but they said they wanted us to come to an agreement. so again, i am pledged to our
chairman that we're not going to let this happen again. that this year we will pass all 12 appropriation bills by august and we've done that before and that will -- it will end this process that started back in 2007 and which got continued in 2011, it's not the way to do the government's business so let's make a pledge today that we're going to, that have c.r., that we're going to work together to solve this problem and move on to f.y. 201. i yield back the -- f.y. 2012. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: i yield the balance of our time, the gentleman from ohio, mr. latourette. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one and a half minutes. mr. latourette: i thank the chair and i thank the gentleman for yielding.
i listened with great interest to the distinguished minority leader and her remarks. i never cast my ballot for her to become speaker of the house but as an american we celebrated the historic accomplishment that she became the first woman to preside over this congress. one thing that will not be said or written is that the -- is that she provided -- presided over a house that was fiscally responsible. they passed a bill that bankrupted the nation, they passed a stimulus bill that created no jobs that may bankrupt the nation. they passed a health care bill that took over 1/6 of the nation's economy, did not bend the cost curve and if not checked will in fact bankrupt
the nation. the distinguished minority leader's speech reminds mauve the adage, everybody wants to go to heaven but nobody wants to die. we hear, we have to cut, we have to cut, but not these cuts, not that cut, not my program, the time is now, the time is serious, we have laid an offer upon the table and we wait with great expectations. now i know what those people in st. peter's square must feel like when they wait for the white smoke to come out of the top of the dome for the lech of a pope. we would like for those on the other side of this capitol to give us a proposal to work with us. but it's not happening, we need to pass the bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: all time for debate has expired. pursuant to house resolution 167, the joint resolution is considered read and the previous question is ordered. the question is on engrossment
and third reading of the joint resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: joint resolution making further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2011 and for other purposes. >> madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> madam speaker, i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman opposed to the joint resolution? >> i am. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman qualified. the gentleman -- the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: the gentleman from pennsylvania moves to recommit the motion with the following amendment, page 20 line 2, strike the final period and preceding quotation, page 20, line 2, insert the following, none of the funds used in this fact may be used to implement a system that cuts benefits or
privatizes social security. section 2, line 6, none of the funds made available by this act may be used to eliminate medicare funds for seniors or eliminating funds to purchase health care in the private secor. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for five minute in support of the motion. as i listen to the the binet the current c.r., i have some reasons for alarm mr. critz: i thank the best way to start it off is to at least start to let you know a little bit about myself, for most of my life, i worked in the private sector, worked all my life and paid into social security. the folks that i live with and live around and the people of my district have come to rely on social security and what it
provides for actually generations at this point. as i have been sitting here listening to this current c.r. which i'm opposed to, i think that we're all, all 435 of us are sent here to lead. unfortunately, what we've heard time and time again is finger pointing, it's your fault, it's our fault, it's their fault, instead of us sitting down and talking to one another and figuring out where we can compromise and how we can come to a final solution to what our problems are. and it's really very disheartening. i can understand the folks who watch this at home are trying to figure out, whose side are we on? are we on their side? are we on a particular party's side? i think it's very unfortunate because at the end of the day we have strong opinions on what the best way forward is in this country and unfortunately, it's about compromise.
because even though we all have strong opinions, we all have differing opinions. if we don't work it out, we're not going to get anywhere. so as i stand in opposition to this c.r., it's something that is disheartening. i'm on the armed services committee and have been hearing from industry time and time again about how difficult it is for them in the long-term. so as we talk about cutting, we're going to cut $2 billion a week for the next three weeks. by doing these short-term c.r.'s, we're costing our country money. no one talks about that, what the impact is going to be from this temporary solution. and the republicans have talked about, well the democrats didn't complete their work last year. that's true. but now the republicans are in charge. you're in charge, you were given a charge to lead this country and here we are going around again doing a two-week, a three-week, this isn't leading.
this is playing games. it's time to stand up and do the right thing for this country. my m.t.r., motion to recommit, involves social security. because the debate that's been happening has been trying to frame social security as a problem and the reason for the deficits that this country is experiencing. i brought a chart with me and i want to read to you the net increase in assets in the social security trust fund for the last six years. in 2005, the social security trust fund increased $172 billion. in 2006, it increased by $189.5 billion. these are increases. this means the money that comes into social security, via your taxes and interest, is more than than what's going out paying in benefits. when people talk about social security is causing our deficit problem, we have to address entitlement programs, they're not giving you the whole
picture. they're trying to tell you that, well, down the road we may have an issue. well no, right now in 2007, the social security trust fund increased $190 ppt 4 billion. in 2008 it increased $180 billion. the trust fund is going up, it has $2.6 trillion in it right now. so the people receiving social security now shouldn't be worried about what it's doing to the deficit because that increase in the trust fund is actually money that's coming in to the government in excess of what social security is spending. but i brought up a chart here because i want to show people that when you start talking about social security, now if you look at the 12th district of pennsylvania, i have a very -- i have an elderly population. i'm one of the districts that has a lot of senior citizens, a lot of people on social security. if you look at this chart, 77%
of people say leave social security alone. don't touch the retirement age, don't touch the benefits, they say come to a solution, figure out a way to move forward. and there are compromises that can be had to help solve the social security issue. because we do have an issue long-term. baby boomers are retiring,less people are paying in. so there are issues we have to address. but don't buy into the crisis legislation that if we don't do something immediately, that social security is going to be in trouble. you're hearing all kinds of scenarios. the one that scares me most, ladies and gentlemen, -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. critz: thank you and i urge support of this amendment. it does not cre commit the bill, it's an amendment and -- recommit the bill, it's an amendment and would just be added to the bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky. >> i rise in opposition to the motion. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes.
mr. rogers: this provision doesn't do anything. nothing in the c.r. would cut sths or medicare benefits, nor would it privatize social security. we are totally committed in this bill to saving social security. so this -- let me be honest. this is a procedural motion that simply is a fog screen, trying to hide us from our real task at hand. but i don't think we'll be fooled by that the debate should not be about procedure or fog screens or things unrelated to the bill. it should be about doing our job. we are here this afternoon to provide the necessary resources to keep the government's doors hope while wellock in important budget savings totaling $6 billion. that's $2 billion in spending reductions or savings to the taxpayer, $2 billion a week.
the path this body set with passage of h.r. 1 a couple of weeks ago. i'd also like to remind my colleagues that with the passage of this c.r. today, we will have cut over $10 billion in the span of two weeks. that sets a record. that's never been done before in this body. the closest was 1995 at $9 billion. this is more than double the $.7 billion that senator reid and the senate democrats proposed in their c.r. last week to fund the government for the remaining six months. we do in two weeks what they would take six months to do. the american people sent us here with a clear message. last november. they want us to end the partisan bickering and get our work done. instead of picking political fights, they want us united in cutting the budget.
this motion moves us further away from that goal, it would send us backwards, not forwards. it's a smoke screen a procedural motion, let's get on with it, vote no and then vote yes on final. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit. the question is on the motion. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it the motion is not agreed to. mr. critz: i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having risen, the yeas an nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 20 this 15-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by five minute votes on passage of h.j. resolution 48 if ordered, and
adoption of h.con.res. 30 by the yeas and nays. this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 19 0rk the nays are 239 and the motion is not adopted. the question son passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.
the ayes have it. the ayes have it. >> recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having risen a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the speaker pro tempore: the joint resolution is passed. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the unfinished business is the vote on toppings of h.con.res. 30 on which the yeas and nays were ordered. the clerk will report the title of the concurrent resolution. the clerk: concurrent resolution providing for an adjournment or recess of the two houses. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on adoption of the concurrent resolution and members will record theircord t by electronic device. this will be a five-minu vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the speaker pro tempore: on this e yeas are 232 and the nays are 197. the resolution is agreed to. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the house will be in order. all members and staff are advised to take their conversations off the floor. the house will be in order.
the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, please accept this letter as my notice of resignation from the committee of financial services
effective today. it has been a great honor and pleasure to serve on this committee. signed sincerely, kenny marchant, member of congress. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the resignation is accepted. the chair is prepared to entertain one-minute requests. for what purpose does the gentlelady from florida rise? ms. ros-lehtinen: i ask unanimous consent to speak for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. ros-lehtinen: i rise today to recognize success for kids working in my district to help improve the lives of children and adolescents. it is dedicated to empowering at-risk children by focusing on the improvement of four personal strategies, interpersonal skills, emotional intelligence, problem solving skills and improved
self-sufficiency. in addition to its great work in south florida, success for kids operates in eight countries and has proven effective in some of the most challenging areas in the world. our children must be provided with every possible opportunity to achieve success and this program is certainly making a positive difference in their lives. i especially applaud our local executive director and all the wonderful staff at success for kids for their valiant effort in improving the lives of our children. thank you, madam speaker, for the time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio rise?
>> request permission to address the house, relt rhett -- revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. kucinich: congress heard from general petraeus today that significant progress is being made in afghanistan. but we've heard that before. military and civilian leaders have for years told lawmakers and the public that we're making progress in afghanistan. we heard it here seven years ago when president karzai of afghanistan talked about our presence there being a journey of success and victory. president bush at the same time saying that a revival was under way, another joint press conference in 2006, president bush saying progress is being made. 2007, general ike brin say ising we're on a -- ikenberry
saying we're on a steady path. 2008, the general saying we're not losing, october 2008, president bush says there's been progress. we keep hearing this same story over and over again. now president obama has requested another $113 billion to continue the work in afghanistan in fiscal year 2012. that will be on top of the $407 billion already spent. it's time congress stepped up, denied the money an get our of afghanistan. we have a vote coming up this thursday to accomplish that. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> mr. speaker, by direction of the republican conference, i offer a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 168, resolved that the following named members be and are hereby -- mr. hensarling: i ask unanimous
consent that the resolution be considered as read and printed into the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the resolution is agreed to and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? >> request permission to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. >> can you imagine if in your household for every $1 you spent, 40 cents was borrowed? mr. kingston: could you imagine that and not changing your buying or spending habits? that's what we're doing. we've had a debate of a spending reduction on less than 2% yet the way some people are screaming and hollering, you would think we're cutting spending in half. this isn't about protecting programs and the status quo. this is about the next generation. sit down and tell your children that, you know what, we've got a deficit of $1.6 trillion and we decided the tough decisions
necessary to balance the budget aren't worth it for the next generation. that's not the america that you and i know and love. we deserve better. we can do better. it's time for democrats and republicans and independents to come together and do what's best for the united states of america. and not worry about the next election, but worry about the next generation. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? >> to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. >> thank you, mr. speaker. we are some 11 week into a new congress and still we have not seen a single bill focused on job creation from the other side of the aisle. what are they focused on? allowing big polluters a free pass to pollute the air we breathe and poison the watt we are edrink. in the pockets of big oil and
big polluters, they are advocating the dirty air act. mr. tonko: the dirty air act would ban e.p.a. from exercising its role as the protector of our air and the protector of our water. for decades, the clean air act has protected children from asthma and seniors from emphysema while reducing our fence on foreign oil. it has created jobs and we simply cannot undo it. my friends on the other side of the aisle should be focused on america's priorities, job creation and economic growth. instead they remain committed to the keep pockets of the dirty energy industry. what is more important, public health for our children and seniors or lining the pockets of the oil industry? i think the choice is clear, i rise today in support of the clean air act. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from ohio rise?
ms. kaptur: i ask unanimous consent to speak for one minute, please. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. ms. kaptur: i want to reiterate some statistics i introduced in the record earlier today as we try to balance the federal budget, let's look at who has the money. if you look at the big banks from wall street that took us down this dangerous road, six banks, citigroup, goldman sachs, j.p. morgan chase, wells fargo, made last year $51.5 billion in profits. that's with a b, billion. today the majority passed a few billion dollars in cuts and they took it out of the hides of ordinary americans paying the price of this recession. but imagine if you worked for a wall street bank and only had to pay an effective tax rate of 11.5% or 11% when most businesses in america have to pay 35%, they are getting a
really good deal. we didn't nick their bonus aspenny and the top executives walked home with $26 million. if you want to ask yourself the question how to balance the budget, why not look at where the money really is. and none of that is on the table. while you're paying those high gas prices, take a look at exxon, they have the largest profits in american history, $9 billion last year in one quarter, paid no taxes. american people, wake up. the speaker pro tempore: are there further one-minute requests? under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentleman from california, mr. garamendi, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
mr. garamendi: mr. speaker, thank you. i want to take this opportunity to talk about what's on the minds of the constituents in my district and that's jobs. they're worried about the economy, they're worried about jobs and they want to find an opportunity to get a job. unfortunately, oh, this is wrong. it's actually 11 weeks since the republicans took control of this house and there's not been one job bill. the big bill that passed here four weeks ago was the continuing resolution for the year. and that piece of legislation actually disposed of 700,000
jobs. it was all couched in terms of how we're going to solve the deficit. but the reality is, you're not going to solve the deficit by making small cuts to multiple programs and that's what it did. what it actually would have accomplished is to destroy 700,000 jobs here in america. what we need to do is take the long view. we need to look at the overarching problem, and we do have a deficit problem. most of it, frankly, was created in the george w. bush administration. if you look back to the year 2000 when the clinton administration ended, there would have been if the same policies had continued, a $5 billion surplus. we would have wiped out the american debt that didn't happen. policies changed. two wars. tax reductions. and an incredible deficit and collapse of the american and
the worldwide economy. so where are we today? we're left with a problem. we're going to talk about that today. i asked my friends from new york, mr. tonko, to join us. and my good friend from illinois, january schakowsky to join us. mr. tonko: thank you for bringing us together in this coming hour so we can address what is the most critical issue, jobs and the economy. the american public speaks overwhelmingly to make certain that that is our highest priority here in congress. in every public opinion survey that you've seen in the last several months, it's about jobs. it's the pledge we have made since i've been here as a member of this house, as democrats in this house, we have been pushing the agenda for jobs. we believe there's no other, higher priority. i think of the 8.2 million jobs
lost in the bush recession when there was a woeful neglect of the manufacturing sector, of the ag sector of our economy, it was dedicated and directed toward service sector, primarily the financial industry and the investment community. we know what happened. there was not stewardship over that rye in a, there was not the sort of watchdog application and we allowed for many people to be hurt by that painful recession where their lifetime's worth of savings was invested in portfolios of investment on wall street and because of the greed, they got blocked out, people were left hurting, losing their homes and their lyme tife doctor lifetime savings and 8.2 million jobs lost to this american economy. we have got to turn that around. we have begun with the programs and policies working with this president, starting in the 111th congress over a year ago where we made certain that jobs, jobs, jobs were the
highest priority. we put together a package of policies that would make certain we would grow jobs in america. we began with some very strong efforts to invest through the recovery act in those industries that need that sort of launching that we could somehow take this clean energy agenda, their industry, the innovation economy, and make it work for america. that affects people in the elements of trade on over to the ph.d.'s. we saw what happened. in the last year, for instance, 1.5 million jobs added from the private sector column. now our friends want to put cuts in domestic programs that every think tank has warned would cost us jobs. many are suggesting 700,000 jobs would be lost if this -- these cuts to the domestic investments that are so important to america's working families would -- would be allowed to have happen.
we need to go forward with a thoughtful plan that enables us to not only grow jobs, in fact, jobs not yet on the radar screen but to grow jobs in a way that can allow us to compete and compete effectively on the global scene, in the global marketplace, because i agree with the president on this notion, whoever win this is race on clean energy, the global race on innovation will become the exporter of energy, intellect, energy, ideas, innotice vation. we saw it happen decades ago with the global race on space. america embraced that with passionate resolve and said we're going to win this race, we're going to invest, president kennedy set a tone that was a winning tone. it engaged everybody. we worked as a team in this country. people came together in a bipartisan, spirited way. all we talked about was investing in science and technology and engineering and guess what, we won that race. because we embraced it with
passionate resolve and it wasn't just the poetry of landing a person, an american on the moon first where he was quoted as saying one small step for man, one giant step for mankind but it was the unleashing of several elements of technology that pervaded every, every sector of development out there from health care to education to communication to energy generation and it was using new technology, maybing the difference by embracing that technological advancement, we not only won the global race on space but created all sorts of technology, science and tech investment in our american industries and our american fabric, that made a difference and that's the sort of synergy, that's the sort of focus, laser sharp focus we need today, not the cutting and dismantling of r&d investments that enable us and power us and give us the power to win the global race on innovation but also to have the sort of human infrastructure
developed through investments in education. that's where we need to be, this conference, the democratic conference in this house has mad it its mantra, make it in america, bring it back, rebuild america, let's show the hopes of the american public, let's make a difference, let's win the global race on innovation. we can do it but won't do it if ke we disinvest in america which is happening on this floor, the attempts to disinvest in america will set us back. mr. garamendi: thank you, mr. speaker tonko. i would oint out in continuing resolution, h.r. 1 that passed this house by the republican party, the innovation was essentially destroyed. there was layoffs of over 6,000 researchers at our u.s. la are atories. -- laboratories. the energy issues that you talked about would not be funded going forward. and in the national institutes
of health, cancer research, heart ailment research, those were also cut. so one thing after another, that new technology, including the new technology for the health of americans was defunded. mr. tonko: and i would add to that, mr. garamendi, representative garamendi, we dismantled the ability to forecast tsunamis. we just saw the devastation in japan with that horrific earthquake. we took away for scientists to address our own public safety. how wrong can we be here? mr. garamendi: will you yield back for a moment? mr. tonko: absolutely. mr. garamendi: not more than 23 minutes ago did the house vote to remove almost $120 billion of funding for the national oceanic and atmospheric administration. that's where the information comes from about the tsunami.
the tsunami warning came were that agency and here we find the republicans pulling money out of that not more than 20 minutes ago, 25 minutes ago here on the floor. i'd like now to turn to our colleague from the great state of illinois. jan, if you'd share with us, i know you have a project under way. perhaps you will share with us. ms. schakowsky: first, let me thank you for focusing not only tonight but so many days on the floor of the house about jobs, since the new majority has done nothing, absolutely nothing to create jobs for the american people since they've been in charge and instead want to gut federal programs in a way economists say will eliminate jobs and slow our economic recovery and put hardship on the american people. yes, i do want to say, first of all, that democrats have a plan and we know what it takes to make investments by building
strong infrastructure and what our plan is called, and i want to thank our leader, the whip, steny hoyer, for giving us the -- summarizing it in the best way possible and that's make it in america. and i know you'll talk about that. we mean both making stock here, which we ought to do, and i think americans everywhere and certainly in my district, they start nodding as soon as i say we need to make it in america and everybody, regardless of party, regardless of income starts to nod. this week i'm reintroducing a bill that i've had called the patriot corporations of america act which provides incentives to and rewards companies that are good corporate citizens of the united states of america. right now sadry the united
states gives billions of dollars in subsidies and tax breaks and government contracts to companies that outsource jobs, that exploit workers, that avoid their fair share of taxes. and this only encourages those companies to invest abroad instead of making it in america and using the best workers in the world, american workers. the patriot corporation of america act would help us reverse course by providing incentives to companies that create a real partnership with american workers and invest in our economic future. it would be paid by -- paid for, this legislation, by closing corporate offshoring loopholes and reining in some of the new tax breaks for millionaires. this bill would reward companies that voluntarily meet the following patriotic standards by moving them to the front of the line for government contracts
and giving them a 5% reduction in their taxable income. to qualify as a patriot corporation, businesses must produce at least 90% of their goods and services in the united states, spend at least 50% of the research and development budget in the united states, limit top executive pay to no greater than 100 times that of the lowest compensated full-time workers. pretty generous, actually. contribute to at least 5% of payroll to a pension fund, pay 70% of the cost of health insurance premiums, maintain neutrality and employee organizing drive and comply with federal regulations regarding the environment, workplace safety, consumer protections and other things. so i think it's time that the united states reward companies that show dedication to the american work force. and that's why i call the
patriot corporations of america act, and i certainly would invite all my friends on both sides of the aisle to support this kind of legislation that helps make it in america. mr. garamendi: you know, that kind of legislation is the type of policy we ought to be pushing forward here, one that rewards corporations that are actually making things in america and employing americans. we have far toof. very quickly i am going to turn to our minority whip in just a moment, but this make it in america slogan was created by steny hoyer and there are about six, seven different policies, some of which we have covered. tax policy, we you just brought forward, a tax incentives for corporations to be good citizens here. mr. tonko talked about energy policy. labor, certainly. and that's part of what you talked about. education, which we haven't yet covered. intellectual property which is in fact that research agenda, and the infrastructure. these are all elements of the
make it in america agenda. mr. hoyer, this is your concept of using this term make it in america. would you share with us how this is moving along? mr. hoyer: well, i thank the gentleman from california. mr. garamendi has been as faithful in bringing before the congress the make it in america agenda. of course, the gentlelady from illinois pointed out it means two things that we're going to succeed, we are going to grab opportunity. we are going to expand our quality of life. we are going to make it, in other words, and we are going to make it in america. we are going to manufacture it in america. we are going to grow it in america and sell it here and across the world. we can compete with anybody in the world, frankly, given the proper environment. and i've talked to numerous members of the corporate community. i've talked to labor.
i've talked to the national association of manufacturers. and we are going to prosue this make it in america agenda because americans know that we need to be focused on jobs, on expanding opportunity and providing for good wages and good benefits for working american families so they can provide a good life for themselves and their families. and as a consequence of doing so we'll create communities and states and a nation which will be and continue to be the envy of the world. democrats believe, mr. garamendi, that when more products are made in america more families will be able to make it in america, as i said. that's why we worked hard since the last congress to advance the make it in america agenda. nobody has worked harder than you have to do that. a legislative agenda that helps create conditions for american companies to stay here, innovate here and create jobs here. when more products are made in america more families have
access to well-paying middle-class jobs. and when more products are made in america we are able to turn expertise and manufacturing them into the new products and new industries of the future. make it in america is about creating middle-class opportunity and about keeping america's innovators here. and keep our innovative age. mr. grove, who was the head of -- who founded intel, made the observation that the problem that we have in america today is we are still the inventive center of the world. we're still the innovative and development center of the world, but too often what we're doing is taking the product we're developing and taking them to scale overseas. his proposition is, and i think andy grove is absolutely right on this, if you continue to to
that the inveptors, innovators and developers will move to where the product is being taken to scale. the president of dell recently wrote a book named, by the way, in january -- the publishers named it in january, and the name of that book is "make it in america." smact, i think i am going to get copies of that -- as a matter of fact, i think i am going to get copies of that for our members. president obama signed seven pieces of make it in america legislation last year. it helps small business owners with tax cuts, grow and create new jobs and strengthen science, technology, engineering and mathematics education, most of which is on your poster there. one thing i will add, i will say to my friend, and i'm not sure where you want to edit, but regulatory policy is going to be critical. and what i have said is that in the last administration the
financial community got way out of hand. why? we took the referee off the field. we need to put the referee back on the field but make sure the referee doesn't get in the way of the game being played within the rules. that's critical nature. some people want to take the referee off the field and forget about the environment. some people want to take the referee off the field and forget about their wages. some people want to take the referee off the field and not worry about a safe working place. all of those things are important. but it's important to make sure that within the rules, and we can do so profitably in america. i talked to one at ford. whirlpool has brought things back. g.e. has brought enterprises back. they still have some offshore. they have brought some back. the proof in the pudding is foreign manufacturers have come to the united states and exporting their cars to other places.
they are making them here but exporting. it shows that you can make it in america and do so profitably. we are going to have some more make it in america legislation. this is not a partisan agenda. there isn't a republican that doesn't want to make sure that america doesn't make it in america. but we haven't, frankly, in the first three months of this session. we are about to leave. we will have taken up january, february and march and not focus on jobs. as a matter of fact, as the gentleman knows, the only thing we've done is pass h.r. 1, which mr. zandi, john mccain's advisor, says will cost us 700,000 jobs. so i am hopeful we can pursue in a bipartisan basis the make it in america agenda, expand our manufacturing capability, grow those jobs that pay well and provide good benefits and make america the kind of country it has been, is now and we want to be in the future.
and i thank the gentleman for yielding and i thank him for focusing america's attention on this critical agenda. mr. garamendi: i thank you very much, mr. hoyer, and we thank you for your leadership on this entire agenda because this is about middle-class america. this is the middle-class america that was rapidly disappearing over the last 15 to 20 years as we exported american manufacturing jobs. your agenda, the make it in america agenda, brings those jobs back to america. i will note there are a couple pieces of legislation that you could add to that list. one of them was -- mr. hoyer: these are, of course, the ones that we have already passed and have been signed into law. you have a very important piece of legislation. geary geary i will come to the future but i -- mr. garamendi: i will come to the future but i will add one to the past. it is one legislation that we passed last december without any republican votes. there was a provision that gave to every business in america the opportunity to immediately write
off against their taxes 100% of the capital investment. so if they wanted to expand their business they could write off immediately, not depreciate over several years, but immediately. not a republican vote for that. there is also in that piece of legislation a -- actually in a previous piece of legislation a tax provision. one of the things we talk about here in our agenda that would eliminate a tax break that american corporations had when they offshored a job. when they sent a job offshore, american corporations received about $12 billion of tax breaks every year. we go, what's that about? well, we eliminated it. again, we had no help for our friends on the republican side. so our agenda started way before this year. we are going to carry it forward with your leadership and we got an agenda here of seven different elements in that, tax
policy being one of them. thank you so very much for your leadership on this. mr. hoyer: i thank you for yielding again but simply say thank you for your leadership. you have been one of the most faithful, effective and articulate spokesperson for middle and working americans. mr. garamendi: you're kind but mr. tonko has been here this entire time. thank you very much, mr. hoyer. mr. tonko: thank you, representative garamendi. the tragedy that results from the lack of vision by the new republican majority in this house, the sadness that results is that not only is it near three months of a new regime with zero numbers of bills, as the number of bills that have been approved that would create jobs, that would be bad enough.
but it's dismantling success that's been achieved in the last couple of years. that translates into jobs. the health care industry, the innovation economy, dismantling that, disinvesting in america. that's even worse. instead of standing still which is tragedy we're going back -- tragic, we're going backward. backward that takes us into what could be the recession of the recent past, that was 8.2 million jobs lost. we need to invest. now, it's a no brainer to assume that you put r&d into play and they've dismantled r&d, education, higher education, health care, all of this impacts jobs. and the potential to compete with the muscle that america needs. the american public is asking for hope to be built into the fabric of this nation. we have advanced that message of hope. we're talking about making it in america. we're talking about investing in r&d.
why? because where r&d takes place is probably where manufacturing follows. it makes sense to incorporate the r&d element with the manufacturing sector. that's a given in the current economy, in the present day industry. so we need to invest. we need to invest in r&d, rather than cutting drastically the programs that will lead to energy research. i served as president and c.e.o. the new york state energy research and development authority. i saw what happened with job creation when you create new shelf opportunities, new product lines and this r&d effort is about taking ideas and moving them along. you prototype, you test, you evaluate and then you manufacture. and we need to carry those steps through. we need to fund them, we need to invest, it's going to take that kind of effort to grow the economy and grow it in a way that allows us to have reasonable expectations to win the global race on energy, clean energy and innovation. you don't dismantle education by
making drastic cuts. you don't undo the opportunity to dream of a higher education and advance your skill set and allow your dreams to be met, to be teggettered. instead you invest. we have not done that. i represent a necklace of community called milltowns that were established with the erie canal history. we created a port out of a little town called new york city and we developed the westward movement through the milltowns that were established in the district think a represent. that pioneer spirit, where these milltowns became the epicenter of invention and innovation, still exist. it's still part of the american d.n.a. and america knows that if we invest, if we instill hope into the equation, they are there. we know that we can make it happen. but it takes the sort of investment and not the denial that we have seen in this house where zero jobs are the result of zero bills being passed here that would promote an american
make it in america campaign, where we would have an american industrial bolstering by this sort of effort, america knows that this is not the actions they called for this kind of standing still is not good because it takes us backwards. it takes us backward, when we need to build upon the progress that was achieved over the last year, where 1 1/2 million private second quarter jobs were added to the equation. we can do it, we can do it in significant measure, we can do it in cutting edge fashion where we advance the intellectual capacity of this great nation, where we're continually investing in the brain power and we're not tapping into it. patents are going offshore. where are we standing here now talking about continuing the mindless effort of subsidies, handouts to big oil companies, to the tune of $100 billion when that could be denied and we could invest fungably move thank those dollars over to investing in r&d, for new product delivery. so we're not dependent on an oil industry, we're not dependent on
disruption in the middle east but rather controlling our own energy future, self-sufficiency, energy independence. those are the dynamics that should guide us. i don't see that here. we're walking away from it. we're walking away from the sound faith we should have in america's workers, look what's happening in wisconsin. workers are row voting -- revolting. we need to respect workers. we need to understand that they are the solution. let's invest in america, let's invest in make it in america and let's turn this economy around, america is placing its hope into the hands of leaders here and to have the results be zero jobs because zero bills were introduced and passed is unacceptable, unacceptable. and the majority needs to account for the 700,000 jobs they want to kill simply by the cuts they're making to the budget that's been presented. mr. garamendi: mr. tonko, your passion and knowledge on this is extraordinary. and so well placed. as we look at what has happened
here on the floor in the last 11 weeks, it has only been about destroying jobs. immediately the continuing resolution that was passed by the republicans four weeks ago actually destroyed, would destroy, if it became law, unfortunately it hasn't, would have destroyed 700,000 jobs. and it's not just those immediate jobs that are lost, as you so correctly point out, the key investments in tomorrow's economy were similarly destroyed. the research agenda for the energy economy was wiped out. the program called arpa-e, advanced research in energy policy, a program was wiped out. those are where the green energy jobs, that's where the conservation, with the new light, the new energy systems that we need to deal with the reality of our dependence on foreign oil and the climate
change issue. just wiped them out. similarly in the national institute of health where you're talking about cancer research, research in diabetes, the things that hold back the american economy because people do get sick and when they're sick they're not able to work. so this whole array of research which is one of the fundamental ingredients of future economic growth was wiped out by the republican agenda. and just today, if i might just add this piece to it, i was looking at the details of the continuing resolution which passed this house some 50 minutes ago. agriculturing a -- agricultural research. we know we have a food crisis coming, there are seven billion people in this world. we have a food crisis that is eminent and much of what's going on in the middle east is because of the price of food. agriculture research to the tune of over $230 million wiped out.
where are we going to get the food for future generations? one final point before i turn it back to you is all of this discussion about the deficit. we have to deal with the deficit. but you can't deal with it the deficit by cutting off -- with the deficit by cutting off the ability of the american economy to grow and perform in the years to ahead. so it's the research, it's the pell grants for education, all those things are critical for tomorrow's economic growth and you cannot deal with the deficit in one year. this is a multiyear program and therefore we need to be very careful where we're spending our money so that we create the jobs for tomorrow and we create the opportunity for america to make it, to make things in america once again. mr. tonko, you can continue on. mr. tonko: i would make this one point. obviously it's about investments. not spending. investments. expecting lucrative dividends, lucrative returns and who is
this cutting grens an attack on? it's an attack on middle class america, an attract on children, it's an attack on working family, it's an attack on our seniors and we only get here what we're wanting to invest here. and i think that we can go forward with a soundness of policy and a resourcefulness of investments made that allows low us to carry us, transition us into a new economy, designed intentionally to grow the potential of this nation. that's what america wants from us and i think this attack is a tremendously cold-hearted attack on america's working families. it's going to destroy our middle class without a strong middle class there is not a strong america. someone needs to create the product, build the product, someone needs to purchase the products. and without a strong middle class, without strong purchasing power for that middle class, the story's over. so let's move on, let's march forward with make it in america, it is great to join you,
representative garamendi, for this special order. mr. garamendi: mr. tonko, if i could just pick up on one of the issues you raised which were the ways in which we spend our money. now, we all pay gasoline tax. right now it seems as though it would be taxed by the oil companies an extra 50 cents or $1 because the price of gasoline is way up there. but actually the federal tax on gasoline is about 18 1/2 cents and on diesel some 25 cents. that money is used to build our infrastructure, our streets, our roads, the interstate highway system, as well as trains, buses and the like. the question is, where do we spend that money? now, previously we would spend that money on buses that were made overseas, we would spend that money on trains and light rail cars that were made overseas. but our agenda here is to bring it home to america. if it's our tax money we want
that money to be spent on things that are made in america. let me give you a couple of examples on transportation. buses, are they made in america? our tax money, is it being used to purchase buses that are made in america? it can be. i have a bill that i've introduced that says, if it's our tax money it's going to be spent on american-made equipment. happens to be the exact same policy that china's following and it's a good policy. you've talked about solar and you've talked about wind. the energy future of tomorrow. people and economists that look at the energy issue say that at that if we go to -- say that if we go to renewable energy, clean energy sources, we can have an enormous new economy in america. but if we fail to take up the challenge, that economy will be overseas. how can we jump start the american economy in the new energy sector? we can do it by using our tax
money to support american-made solar systems, whether they are panels like this or the new solar thermal programs, the wind systems, it's our tax money that are allowing these systems to be built, but are they american-made? my legislation would say, yes, they must be american-made. and i'll give you one example of where this has worked. we are now, and this is the president's agenda on high speed rail, happens to be mine, i introduced a piece of legislation in california in 1989 that established the high speed rail commission. we need to do that. and in the legislation, this was the recovery act, the stimulus, it said, money for high speed rail must be spent on american-made equipment. so companies are establishing manufacturing facilities in america. we can do it with wise public policy and i know that you've talked about this and you've introduced some legislation of
your own so if you would share with us your views on how this is working. mr. tonko: well, i think that it's important for us to make certain that we create the renewable industry here in this country. and you know you talked about the challenges of competing with china. let's look at the proof in the pudding. let's take a look at what it looked like in 2008. private sector investment in the united states was at some $32 billion. and china was at about $23 billion. in terms of private sector investment and renewables. then fast forward to the next year in 2009. it flipped. china was at $35 billion, we were down to $19 billion. we need to meet so we can compete and we compete effectively by investing. it's there, the clairian wakeup calls are sounding and we need to heed them, we need to listen to those alarms that are going off, telling us that without investing into the future we are going to lose in the race. so, i want to put a hopeful spin on this, i think that our
efforts as democrats of this house to make it in america are right on. it's what the doctor ordered, we're talking about investing in a clean energy innovation economy, we're talking about investing in higher ed, in r&d. that's how we win it, we win it by a complete commitment to an agenda that is well documented through the years, it's no different now if we want to win this global race on innovation we need to march forward aggressively with the resources and with passionate resolve and we can win it, i believe in my heart we can win it, we just need to commit to the american public that are counting on us to provide the hope at their doorstep. mr. garamendi: thank you very much, mr. tonko. you are a tremendous representative of new york state and america. your passion for the build it in america, make it in america agenda is so very obvious. we thank you for that. i want to wrap this session up with going back to what we dealt with on the floor earlier today. earlier today we dealt with a
continuing resolution that would go for three weeks and it has a series of cuts in it. some of those cuts are appropriate. some of them are very, very detrimental. for example, $120 billion reduction in the national oceanic and atmospheric administration. that's why we get information -- $120 million in the national oceanic and atmospheric administration. why would we cut that? it will be detrimental. research and development. we already talked about it. we need to move forward with a new green revolution so there will be people of this world and for ourselves. that was cut out of this budget. and if you'd love to have germs and other problems with your food, well, you'll love what the republicans did earlier this morning or this afternoon when they cut some $24 million out of the animal plant inspection
services. why do we want to have contaminated food? i don't know. but apparently our republican colleagues do know. so, anyway, that's been done. but if you take the whole thing in context, i want to point out here that in december with the continuing resolution in december that was a democratic sponsored resolution to continue funding the government for about three months we cut $41 billion out of the budget. $41 billion out of the budget. now, when the republicans came in they decided to do a new resolution a couple of weeks ago and that resolution would actually eliminate some 700,000 jobs in america. is it going to lead to a solution to the deficit? not really. we are talking about the discretionary spending which is a very, very small part of the american budget. as such, there's no way you can really solve the deficit problem in that way. yes, we need to make reductions.
that's why we did $41 billion back in keys. but those are very targeted cuts that continued to allow america invest in those things that create jobs. we're now into a new set of continuing resolutions. two weeks last week -- or two weeks ago. another three weeks this week. that's no way to run a government but that's apparently what we have been reduced to. now, i understand the argument that we didn't get an appropriation bill last fall. why wasn't there an appropriation bill last fall? the reason is that it was blocked in the senate by a handful of folks that threatened a filibuster. that's why we don't have a resolution. that's why we've been thrown into this continuing resolution problem. what we need to do is take the long term. in president obama's budget, the long-term deficit is dealt with over a period of five years bringing down the deficit to a point where it is an acceptable
part of the american economy. it allows the economy to grow with investments that are made now in infrastructure, education, investments made in research and development so that we can grow the economy for tomorrow. that's a wise way to do it, but a feeding frenzy of cuts that actually would eliminate 700,000 jobs is not the way you grow the american economy. we have to be wise. we have to have the long term, and we have had the long term before. during the clinton administration we actually balanced the budget for the last 2 1/2 years in that administration and we were able to create -- had those policies gone forward during the bush administration, had those policies been kept in place we would have eliminated the american debt. would have been gone. but those policies were radically changed by the george bush administration.
most of those benefits going to the high end of the economy, to the very, very wealthy resulting in a significant increase in the deficit and then an increase in the medicaid -- medicare program for drug benefits. again, not paid for. increasing the deficit and two wars. neither of which were paid for. the afghanistan war and the iraq war. not paid for but rather borrowed money from china and other places. the result of that, an enormous increase in the deficit followed by the great recession which was basically caused by greed, wall street greed and the elimination of regulation. it was as though you had an nfl football game and you would have wiped out the sidelines, you took the referees off the field, send them back to the locker room, ok, play ball, boys. you know what would happen? chaos. and that's what we got in the financial sector when regulation was removed and we wound up with
the great recession. we need to put in place sound regulation, good regulation and we need to have the referees on the field. we also need to have a long-term vision on how to deal with the deficit, and you cannot do it by just in a feeding frenzy wiping out critical programs that create future economic growth. unfortunately that's what our republican colleagues have suggested we do. we're not there yet. the h.r. 1, the resolution that would have lost 700,000 jobs was stopped in the senate. we're now into a process of short-term continuing resolutions to keep the government going. be wise as you put forward those resolutions, i would ask my colleagues on the republican side. it's a great challenge. it's a challenge that we must and we will meet. we need a balanced, long-term vision, bringing the economy along, allowing it to grow and to build in the future, whether
that be the green tech economy of the future, the medical systems, the health care systems. we have great opportunity but those opportunities will not be met if we are not wise and if we have the wrong kind of deficit reduction plans which, again, we saw today on this floor not more than an hour ago. mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time and i thank my colleagues. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentlelady from ohio, mrs. schmidt, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority lowered. mrs. schmidt: thank you, mr. speaker, and thank you for giving me this opportunity to talk about a subject i really love and that's history. especially women's history. i think all too often, as we grew up as children, our history books failed to mention the
courageous activities of women throughout the nation and throughout the world. somehow we learned about men but all too often not about women. but when we did learn about women we didn't learn what they really were all about. you know, growing up as a little girl, i grew up in an era that we couldn't do what is allowed today. we couldn't run marathons, being at the pits at the indianapolis 500 as a press person, we weren't allowed to be in rotaries. why, shoot, women weren't allowed to vote until 1920. in fact, the first woman that served in this house served there two full years before women had a right to vote. and when you think about all the things that have happened in
this last century, we have to look to a century before to see, wow, who were the folks that really made this happen because it just didn't happen overnight. in the hallway out in the rotunda there is a what i think is the best statue, and it's the statue of the pioneers of women suffrage. it's an extraordinary piece of artwork, one that depicts the likelinesses of elizabeth katie stanton, lacreesha mott and susan b. anthony, arguably the women who pushed the button for women today to have true equal rights with men. these were the most pro-women feminists in the history of america. and as you will see in a few moments, the rest of the story, as paul harvey would say, for
elizabeth katie stanton and susan b. anthony, were just not writ when i was a little girl. i'd like to begin this hour by referring to a few quotes from a couple of these foremothers that truly show where they stood in history with what i believe is the most pro-feminine issue and that's the issue of abortion. you see, mr. speaker, every one of us has the right to life. born and unborn. and it is the women who have the responsibility to make sure that that baby is born. unfortunately our courts over 33 years ago decided to change that and said that women had the right to end that life.
but, mr. speaker, we don't have that right. it is our responsibility to bear those children. and these foremothers knew that. in a letter to julia ward howard in 1873, elizabeth katie stanton, the woman who shocked society, mr. speaker, by daring to leave her house proudly showing her pregnancy because that was just not done, wrote, and i quote, when we consider that women are treated as property it is degrading to women to treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit. now, when i was a child in school learning about the issues of women suffrage and women rights, i knew elizabeth katie stanton was pro-woman,
pro-freedom pioneer but i didn't know she was pro-life. shoot, i didn't know she was pro-life until a few years ago. she was hardly alone. in her pro-life views. as you can see, susan b. anthony also expressed her thoughts about pro-life in the publication "the revolution." guilty? yes. no matter what the motive, love of ease or desire to save from the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed. it will burden her conscience in life. it will burden her soul in death. mr. speaker, those words were written over 100 years ago, over 150 years ago, and yet they could easily be written today because today, mr. speaker, we
hear from women who've had the painful tragedy of abortion on their soul and they talk about how their heart reaps because of the life that they gave up and how they want not just to forgive themselves but to protect women from that awful decision that they made to protect other women from the suffering that they have. and yet, susan b. anthony knew that years ago. so you see in history pro-life was an issue. and you know, you have to think about it, mr. speaker, and you have to think it makes sense because the whole issue of abortion, it just didn't come about in the 20th century or the 21st century. it came about centuries ago. unfortunately indiscretions have happened throughout history and when indiscretions happen babies are created.
and then the issue becomes, what do you do to hide the dirty little secret? are you like hester primm in nathaniel hawthorne's "the scarlett letter" where you put her in prison and in the wilderness trying to hide pearl, her beautiful daughter? in the end only knowing that pearl became the most beautiful little girl? now, what was nathaniel hawthorne saying about the pregnancy? what was he saying about the birth of that child? was he saying that child had the right to life? or was nathaniel hawthorne thinking other things? we don't know but we can only wonder why he put her in prison and why he chastised her to the wilderness. but the point was they wanted to hide this secret, and because
she chose to have the child that secret was going to be born. and so forth, people like susan b. anthony and elizabeth katie stanton in the 1860's to say, wait a minute, women should have the right to get married, to get divorced, to raise children and oh, by the way have their own children, own property, be able to vote, we shouldn't be surprised that protecting the child and the birth of that child was part of their platform. and today in 2011 i am very proud to stand here and carry on with their message because today ever more so the assault of life is all around us and i believe that assault on life is there because we don't recognize the meaning of life at its conception. and when you compromise it at
its conception i think you question the validity of life all the way through to its end. you know, each year, and i'm so proud to represent the second congressional district of ohio, each year i am really proud of the hundreds of thousands of people that come out to the lawn on the capitol in probably the coldest day in january to petition congress to end abortion. it's called the right to life march and in the five years that i've been in congress, standing with them, we've yet to have a decent day. i mean, sometimes it's just cold, sometimes it's cold and snowy, sometimes it's cold and rainy. but it's always cold. and i stand out on a platform and i'm there for maybe an hour but they're standing there for hours.
kids from schools are coming up in buses, traveling all night, getting off the bus only to stand on cold ground, only to get back on that bus and go right back home and go right back to school. parents are coming with small kids, buses, cars, airplanes, car vans asking congress -- karaadvance, asking congress to end something -- ka -- carvans, asking congress to end something that is so wrong. and i look out on the lawn and i see these brave people, say to myself, wow, that's what america's all about. and among the crowd i see so many women. i believe more women than men. because women, we have the privilege to experience child birth and we understand firsthand what that life is like inside a womb. and i think when we do have that experience and we understand the
meaning of life it makes us want to get out and protect it so that it can have its natural right to come into the world and be the person god wants it to be. and i do this because i'm so proud of the folks that are out there but i also do it for some folks back home. back when i was in high school the whole issue of abortion began to emerge before roe v. wade because states were considering whether they should legalize abortion or not. and there was a couple in cincinnati by the name of dr. jack and barbara wilky, he a physician, she a nurse, who were at forefront of this movement. and they gathered people like my parents and other people around their coffee table to discuss how we could protect ohio from
legalizing abortion. and then of course roe v. wade hit in 1973. and the campaign escalated to a national debate. but along the way and they weren't the only once, by the way, mr. speaker, there were people all across coffee tables all across america debating how we're going to protect life. but it was barbara, among the group, and they were talking on the telephone, it was before email and blackberries and even fax machines, were talking on the phone long distance with one another, but it was barbara at her kitchen table to jack that said one day, you know, jack, i just don't understand this whole debate. my gosh, we're protected, our nation protects us as if everybody has the right to life. and he says, barbara, that's the name of the movement. and the name of the movement was branded. the national right to life
movement. now, barbara and jack have served many years and many capacities in this movement. jack served as president of the national right to life committee for well over a decade. they founded the international right to life federation and wrote the hand book on abortion, a book often described as the unofficial bible of the pro-life movement during the 1970's and 1980's. they also have other groups that they work with around the world fighting all kinds of life issues, not just for the unborn but for human trafficking and women's rights. i mention this because this couple, this simple couple from college hill, ohio, is just one of many across our nation that recognizes the importance of this issue and is dedicating their life to eradicating
abortion. and so when i stand out on that lawn on those cold january days each and every year, i look at people and i think, there are other jack and barbara wilkys, maybes no as famous, that are doing the same thing, hundreds and hundreds of thousands. and then i think of susan b. anthony and elizabeth cadey stanten and the contemporary barriers of that message like the wilkys and i say, wow, there is a plan out there. and the last note on abortion hasn't been written. you know, alice paul is another pretty important feminist in history. she was actually the original author of the equal rights amendment and, mr. speaker, if you think that abortion is a hot issue, i can remember back in the 1970's when the equal rights
amendment was being debated across this land and thata hot issue that was. oh, my gosh, should we give women the same rights as men arned and there were women that said, no, no, they need to be back in the home and other folks that said, no, women need to have equal pay as men and are we going to have -- what are we going to do about private facilities and -- it was just, you know, an awful debate because it really deflected from the real issue that all of us are god's creatures and all of us are created equal. and so i remember als i paul as being at the forefront of this and remembering the debate both in high school and college. but, man, i didn't know until a few years ago that alice paul was pro-life. here's a woman that was painted as this equal rights left wing feminist and yet when we look at
pro-life issues we think they're a conservative right wing issue. but it was alice paul, the original author of the equal rights amendment, who stated, abortion is the ultimate exploitation of women. abortion is the ultimate exploitation of women from this far left, hard-nosed person. add to her views the ones previously referenced and it is difficult to see any ambiguity or confusion about where these feminists and advocates of the women's right movement stood on the issue of abortion. simply put, they detested abortion and went as far as publicly and privately as they could in condemning it.
unfortunately, madam speaker, it seems as though their rhetoric has been largely lost over the years hid innocent an you wills of history -- in the annuals of history and i just -- annuls of history and i just don't know why. because if we don't understand the fult depth of history, we'll never understand march 15, 2011, and the views that we date in this very chamber today. -- we debate in this very chamber today. and it's sad because as a little girl i didn't know about these pioneers, i didn't know about their pro-life positions, i didn't know that they were sisters with me, i thought they were different. i thought that the folks that stood before me to give us equal rights were pro-choice, but could be farther from the truth.
i think many people believe that feminism and pro-life principles are mutually exclusive. and cannot be reconciled with each other. but when you look at history you can see that they're not exclusive but inclusive because it is we, as i said earlier, that have the responsibility to have the children, to continue to prokereat for the future. that is why we were put here on earth, to have children. and it is our responsibility to make sure that these children are cared for both inside the womb and out and for a court to say it is our right to end it i think is exclusive of what we were made of.
it is against what we are made of. now, mr. speaker, i'll speak more but i've had the privilege of being joined by my good friend, the congresswoman from north carolina, and i would like to yield as much time to the good congresswoman as she would like. >> thank you so much to my esteemed colleague from ohio and your comments are so pertinent to today's fight. and you know, we women are conservative women and those who have come before us, as you pointed out so eloquently, we don't know what they believe but we're starting to unveil all of that. mr. speaker, i rise today in support of women, to honor the rich contributions women have made in history, in the history of this world. mrs. ellmers: and i want to take a moment to discuss the strong
pro-life movement that my colleagues and i are continuing to fight today. i rise in support and fight on behalf of women and in this month dedicated to women i ask them to choose life for themselves and for their child. the original feminists were indeed against abortion. these women believed that there was power in motherhood and choosing life. alice paul, the author of the original equal rights amendment, said it best, abortion is the exploitation of women. it is this exploitation by groups like planned parenthood that frighten me for the women of our country. it has been proven that women who have had an abortion are six to seven times more likely to
commit suicide in the following year than a woman who chooses to deliver her child. we all know of the syndrome, postpartum depression. women who abort were 65% more likely than delivering women to be at risk for long-term clinical depression. 65% of u.s. women who had abortions experienced multiple symptoms of post traumatic stress disorder which they attributed to their abortion. in another study 60% said they felt that part of them died and i quote, part of them died. compared to women who deliver, women who abort are more than
twice as likely to be subsequently hospitalized for psychiatric illness within six months and subsequently required significantly more treatments for the psych ratic treatment throughout patient care. there are also numerous health risks that occur after an abortion is performed. reproductive complications and problems with subsequent deliveries can occur. one of these being pelvic inflammatory disease which is a major direct cause of infertility. after an abortion there is a seven to 15 fold increase in placenta previa in subsequent pregnancies, a life-threatening condition for mother and baby that increases the risk of birth defect, still birth and excessive bleeding leading to excessive bleeding leading to possible loss of life of the